Toomer Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 (edited) In todays Echo, ex Saint Mark Denis reckons if Clattenburg was a bar of chocolate he would eat himself. Edited 7 January, 2014 by Toomer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 In todays Echo, ex Saint Mark Denise reckons if Clattenburg was a bar of chocolate he would eat himself. Quick, get some minders.......... he's gonna love you for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 Quick, get some minders.......... he's gonna love you for that LOL ... and now that you've quoted it ... he can't simply edit it and hope nobody from the Dennis Camp spotted it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 LOL ... and now that you've quoted it ... he can't simply edit it and hope nobody from the Dennis Camp spotted it!! He might already have the Bermondsey boys on their way down to sort me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 In todays Echo, ex Saint Mark Denis reckons if Clattenburg was a bar of chocolate he would eat himself. Mark Wotte's nickname was chocolate for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 Mark Wotte's nickname was chocolate for a reason. Where's Dalek? MLT said the same about Hoddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardustonmyfeet Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 Mark Wotte's nickname was chocolate for a reason. This was Simon Clifford's nickname as well... I guess there's a lot of recycling at Staplewood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 The sentence in bold above is a bit open for interpretation though. Do they think he "said to much" but they dont have any rules for it and can therefor not punish him...? Or does what he said dont go against rules they do have....? Yeah, maybe but that's a fairly meaningless interpretation. They have to put "under the FA's rules" because if they'd just put "does not constitute misconduct" it's just an opinion. "under the FA's rules" makes it a judgement call. Which is what it is. If people on here want to complain about the rules, fine. But they are the rules and MC hasn't broken any. That is not "getting off on a technicality" as WG says, or some cover up or whatever it was that Dubai Phil was saying it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 Another howler This time at Sunderland, by mariner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 Another howler This time at Sunderland, by mariner The pen? Don't know if it was, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 The non sending off More the Lino I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 The non sending off More the Lino I think Ah, missed that part, I clean forgot this game was even on. So did half of Sunderland, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 7 January, 2014 Share Posted 7 January, 2014 The non sending off More the Lino I think I'm with you on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Boy Saint Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Only Saw the Pen this morning on the news, first viewing Pen- replay - Penalty. and the free kick for Sunderlands first goal we have seen them given all day long apart from when Rickie is involved. Be interesting to see what Moyes gets for his straight out moaning about the Ref post match, he sounded like a man who knew the Refs favour the Prem Darlings and was smarting from not getting the favourable treatment that goes with just being Manchester United. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Only Saw the Pen this morning on the news, first viewing Pen- replay - Penalty. and the free kick for Sunderlands first goal we have seen them given all day long apart from when Rickie is involved. Be interesting to see what Moyes gets for his straight out moaning about the Ref post match, he sounded like a man who knew the Refs favour the Prem Darlings and was smarting from not getting the favourable treatment that goes with just being Manchester United. Tough being mid-table ain't it mancs...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabrone Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 If a player from another club had complained like AL did over what seemed an innocuous interchange I'd find it pretty pathetic, I can't be a hypocrite on this. The non pen was a very bad decision but AL and the club haven't done themselves any favours over this. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 I see Rogers criticised a ref and got fined about 8000£, didn't Moyes get £10000 not long back as well. Now we criticised Clattenburg in an occult sort of manner and Mauricio gets to keep his money. Now that's the Southampton way:smug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 I see Rogers criticised a ref and got fined about 8000£, didn't Moyes get £10000 not long back as well. Now we criticised Clattenburg in an occult sort of manner and Mauricio gets to keep his money. Now that's the Southampton way:smug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 Basket of Light !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 9 January, 2014 Share Posted 9 January, 2014 If a player from another club had complained like AL did over what seemed an innocuous interchange I'd find it pretty pathetic, I can't be a hypocrite on this. The non pen was a very bad decision but AL and the club haven't done themselves any favours over this. Sorry. AL had nothing to do with making the complaint. Have you been keeping up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/pochettino-clattenburg-matter-over-29902910.html So, MP says he has no problem with Clattenburg being a ref for one of our future games. Suggests the affair has blown over and SFC are not going to pursue this action any further. So what's the result? A load of negative publicity without any end product? Or will Clattenburg be overly lenient to us for one game in the future? Probably not, but good to see sense is prevailing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/pochettino-clattenburg-matter-over-29902910.html So, MP says he has no problem with Clattenburg being a ref for one of our future games. Suggests the affair has blown over and SFC are not going to pursue this action any further. So what's the result? A load of negative publicity without any end product? Or will Clattenburg be overly lenient to us for one game in the future? Probably not, but good to see sense is prevailing. probably the opposite, he will not want to be seen as caving in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 I see Rogers criticised a ref and got fined about 8000£, didn't Moyes get £10000 not long back as well. Now we criticised Clattenburg in an occult sort of manner and Mauricio gets to keep his money. Now that's the Southampton way:smug: As you say, looking at the whole episode, Southampton have handled it with considerable aplomb. Criticise the referee in a post-match interview and run the risk of a fine from the FA. Criticise him indirectly associated with the referee's alleged insulting language towards your player and although there is not a case for the referee to answer, according to the kangaroo court decision from the referee's mates and the FA, nevertheless there is no fine. And yet everybody knows that the reason that our player was agitated enough to question the referee, leading to the altercation, was because it was a sh*t decision by a sh*t referee. We then step back from the confrontational mode, say that we've drawn a line under it. But Clattenburg probably won't be refereeing us for a while and when he does, he will be a bit more circumspect about failing to award us a stonewall penalty the next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 As you say, looking at the whole episode, Southampton have handled it with considerable aplomb. Criticise the referee in a post-match interview and run the risk of a fine from the FA. Criticise him indirectly associated with the referee's alleged insulting language towards your player and although there is not a case for the referee to answer, according to the kangaroo court decision from the referee's mates and the FA, nevertheless there is no fine. And yet everybody knows that the reason that our player was agitated enough to question the referee, leading to the altercation, was because it was a sh*t decision by a sh*t referee. We then step back from the confrontational mode, say that we've drawn a line under it. But Clattenburg probably won't be refereeing us for a while and when he does, he will be a bit more circumspect about failing to award us a stonewall penalty the next time. With the only collateral damage is our captain looking like a total mug. Considerable aplomb indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 With the only collateral damage is our captain looking like a total mug. Considerable aplomb indeed. I don't think that's the case. I would think that most unconnected people would conclude that there was more to it than what has been suggested and that Clattenburg will have a little question mark hanging over him from now on. In fact, they probably won't give a toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 With the only collateral damage is our captain looking like a total mug. This, AL is the only loser in all of this in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 This, AL is the only loser in all of this in my eyes. Clever plan to deflect interest from other clubs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 (edited) I don't think that's the case. I would think that most unconnected people would conclude that there was more to it than what has been suggested and that Clattenburg will have a little question mark hanging over him from now on. In fact, they probably won't give a toss. The only people saying "there is more to it than suggested" are nutcases like you. Saints didn't bother to say there was "more to it" , so why would anyone else "suggest" it. What "unconnected" people "concluded" was that the club were wrong and Lallana personally came in for criticism from many quarters. I know you avoid facts in favour of your own bonkers theories but that's what happened. Edited 10 January, 2014 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 With the only collateral damage is our captain looking like a total mug. Considerable aplomb indeed. This, AL is the only loser in all of this in my eyes. The only people saying "there is more to it than suggested" are nutcases like you. Saints didn't bother to say there was "more to it than suggested", so why would anyone else say it. What "unconnected" people "concluded" was that the club were wrong and Lallana personally came in for criticism from many quarters. I know you avoid facts in favour of your own bonkers theories but that's what happened. No need for abuse, WG is probably right. And to those suggesting that AL comes out of it badly, who made the official complaint to the FA? It certainly wasn't Lallana. MP has already made the point that refs are treating us unfairly, even before the Lallana incident. Has it occurred to you that the abysmal non-handball decision in a crucial game might have sparked a bit of afters from the management? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 No need for abuse, WG is probably right. And to those suggesting that AL comes out of it badly, who made the official complaint to the FA? It certainly wasn't Lallana. MP has already made the point that refs are treating us unfairly, even before the Lallana incident. Has it occurred to you that the abysmal non-handball decision in a crucial game might have sparked a bit of afters from the management? The response from media/pundits/phone ins - "unconnected people" in WG's words - was that Lallana came out looking in the wrong. We all knew he didn't make the complaint but that didn't stop the response that happened. He was at the centre of the story and he came out of it badly. And WG is not right. There was nothing else to it. Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 The only people saying "there is more to it than suggested" are nutcases like you. Saints didn't bother to say there was "more to it" , so why would anyone else "suggest" it. What "unconnected" people "concluded" was that the club were wrong and Lallana personally came in for criticism from many quarters. I know you avoid facts in favour of your own bonkers theories but that's what happened. Now I know I'm right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Now I know I'm right Not crying about bullying today then? Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Not crying about bullying today then? Well done. I'm too old and grey for all that. You and I have different opinions and see things from a different viewpoint. It's a good thing we're all different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Now I know I'm right You and I can't possibly be right, WG, because we are assured by the forum's know it all that even if the club have played a blinder in getting the FA to look more closely at the standard of refereeing, because in his opinion Lallana came out of it badly, then the whole exercise was not worth it. Also there couldn't possibly have been more to the club's complaint than met the eye, because Fry has given us assurances that he knows that to be a fact, being as how he has the ear of Cortese and is a confidant of Lallana. In reality, the whole thing is yesterday's chip-wrapper and in a month or two, most people won't remember whether it was Lallana or Rodriguez who was denied the handball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Another howler This time at Sunderland, by mariner The one for the freekick ? It clearly was a freekick No idea what Moyes is complaining at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 (edited) You and I can't possibly be right, WG, because we are assured by the forum's know it all that even if the club have played a blinder in getting the FA to look more closely at the standard of refereeing, because in his opinion Lallana came out of it badly, then the whole exercise was not worth it. Also there couldn't possibly have been more to the club's complaint than met the eye, because Fry has given us assurances that he knows that to be a fact, being as how he has the ear of Cortese and is a confidant of Lallana. Your little routine is all jolly sweet and clever but avoids the painfully obvious point that it's you and Whitey that are speculating, not me. More to the complaint? Total speculation, especially as Saints set the terms of the investigation with their letter. Anything "more to it" the club were too gutless to put in the letter. Saints changing the face of refereeing? Total speculation, and laughable. Look forward to you affording the same compliments to Norwich or Spurs or Leicester City next time they bellyache about a referee. So remember, I'm dealing in the facts of the case while you're making stuff up because you don't like the facts. Edited 10 January, 2014 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Your little routine is all jolly sweet and clever but avoids the painfully obvious point that it's you and Whitey that are speculating, not me. More to the complaint? Total speculation, especially as Saints set the terms of the investigation with their letter. Anything "more to it" the club were too gutless to put in the letter. Saints changing the face of refereeing? Total speculation, and laughable. Look forward to you affording the same compliments to Norwich or Spurs or Leicester City next time they bellyache about a referee. So remember, I'm dealing in the facts of the case while you're making stuff up because you don't like the facts. The facts are that Lallana queried a refereeing decision that was clearly wrong, the referee insulted him, and the club complained to the FA about the insult. And you maintain that Lallana came out of it looking bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 The facts are that Lallana queried a refereeing decision that was clearly wrong, the referee insulted him, and the club complained to the FA about the insult. And you maintain that Lallana came out of it looking bad. He did, unless you've been living under a rock for the last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 Scotty, you're calling Kelvin Davis a liar, then? http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11700/9109804/premier-league-england-midfielder-adam-lallana-hurt-by-clattenburg-criticism http://www.itv.com/sport/football/article/2014-01-10/southampton-forward-adam-lallana-annoyed-by-criticism-over-his-complaint-against-mark-clattenburg/ Like I say, facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 He did, unless you've been living under a rock for the last week. This is getting boring, so for the last time, Lallana made no complaint. The club did. So if anyone comes out of it looking bad, the management did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 This is getting boring, so for the last time, Lallana made no complaint. The club did. So if anyone comes out of it looking bad, the management did. I know precisely who made the complaint. Despite this, Lallana looked like an absolute plum. Like I say, deal with facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 "Despite the club rather than the player raising the matter, Lallana has been widely ridiculed, something that initially upset the attacking midfielder." "England midfielder Adam Lallana was hurt by the widespread criticism aimed at him after Southampton's complaint against referee Mark Clattenburg, says Saints club captain Kelvin Davis." Seems a bit mental to suggest Lallana has come out of this well; he's taking pelters all round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Martin Samuel in the fail day One moment they were at daggers drawn, the next Southampton manager Mauricio Pochettino had called a truce and was open to the thought of Mark Clattenburg refereeing his players again. How bizarre. It was almost as if his heart wasn’t in the fight; almost as if it wasn’t really his fight at all. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2538261/MARTIN-SAMUEL-If-Terry-Suarez-celebrated-like-Anelka-banned-dithering-FA-long-now.html#ixzz2qGvODCpr Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Randomly stuck on the end with no quotes or context. Any else confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Randomly stuck on the end with no quotes or context. Any else confused? Does look odd. Almost as though it was part of a longer piece which was chopped out by the sub-editors, except they missed a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Does look odd. Almost as though it was part of a longer piece which was chopped out by the sub-editors, except they missed a bit. It infers to me that it wasn't of Pochettino's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 13 January, 2014 Share Posted 13 January, 2014 Adam had nothing to do with the complaint and really isn't bothered. (from Weston's source, nobody closer to Adam) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 16 January, 2014 Share Posted 16 January, 2014 Now if we were to accept that Cortese has had little to do with the club for a couple of weeks now and that Adam wasn't the instigator of this complaint, then who do you think was behind it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 16 January, 2014 Share Posted 16 January, 2014 I know precisely who made the complaint. Despite this, Lallana looked like an absolute plum. Like I say, deal with facts. Now if we were to accept that Cortese has had little to do with the club for a couple of weeks now and that Adam wasn't the instigator of this complaint, then who do you think was behind it ? We await CBF's informed reply to that one Windows. Can just imagine NC on the phone while Heli-Skiing over Christmas & New Year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 17 January, 2014 Share Posted 17 January, 2014 Rob Harris @RobHarris £8,000 fine for David Moyes after saying United team was "playing referees as well as the opposition." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now